Information Double Standard

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

The disparity in Judge Kevin Miller’s responses—scolding Plaintiff Craig Stevenson’s attorney for including publicly available information about the judge in a sworn declaration, while taking no action against Defendants for serious and repeated protective order violations, including the release of confidential medical and mental health information—raises grave concerns about judicial impartiality, selective enforcement of court rules, and disregard for the seriousness of abuse-related harm.

🔍 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

🔹 From Marie Stevenson’s Declaration (Doc. 505) – ¶¶ 73–90:

Marie outlines at least eight documented violations of the court’s protective order by Defendants, including:

• Public filing of sensitive medical records (¶74, 83)
• Disclosure of videos showing the interior of their home (¶74)
• Repeated refusals by defense counsel to mark medical records as confidential—even after being asked to do so (¶74)
• Disclosure of confidential materials to third parties without assurances of confidentiality (¶83–84)
• Disclosure of Marie’s cancer diagnosis by Judge Miller himself in a public court order (¶87–90)

These violations were:

• Raised in multiple filings
• Discussed in hearings (¶77)
• Detailed in a direct letter to Judge Miller (¶80)
• Repeated even after Judge Miller dismissed the concerns as “moot” (¶82, 86)

🔹 From Hearing Transcript (Doc. 544 – pp. 15–17):

Judge Miller aggressively questioned and implicitly reprimanded Plaintiffs’ attorney, Matthew Schaap, for including the judge’s [public information] in a sworn declaration. Key points:

• The information was public, already published in Judge Miller’s judicial disclosures.
• The judge repeated the question several times to emphasize his disapproval.
• He did not inquire into context or purpose, nor did he indicate that any rule had been violated.

🔹 From Judge Miller’s December 18, 2024 Order (Doc. 549):

• No mention is made of the protective order violations described by Marie Stevenson.
• The order defends the integrity of the court’s decision-making process and chastises Plaintiffs’ counsel for allegedly questioning the court’s authority.
• Judge Miller gives no explanation for failing to sanction or even address documented breaches of confidentiality that harmed Marie.

⚖️ ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTRAST

1. Disparate Treatment of Parties

Judge Miller responded to a minor procedural detail—the inclusion of publicly available information about himself—with a public reprimand. Meanwhile, he:

• Ignored repeated, deliberate violations of a court-issued protective order
• Minimized traumatic conduct by calling Sean Stevenson’s actions a mere “petty oppression,” despite evidence that Sean mailed 25 pages of private emails to Marie’s known abuser, after being told of her past trauma and after witnessing a panic attack

This gross disparity suggests a bias in favor of the Defendants, and it supports the appearance that Judge Miller treated the Plaintiffs more harshly and held them to a different standard.

2. Failure to Protect Confidentiality and Uphold Court Orders

Protective orders are designed to prevent exactly what occurred here: the weaponization of private, sensitive information. The judge’s failure to enforce his own order—and his own public disclosure of Marie’s cancer diagnosis (¶87–90)—undermines public confidence in the court’s ability to enforce protections equitably and seriously.

3. Impartiality and Judicial Ethics (Rule 2.11(A), Minn. Code of Judicial Conduct)

Under Rule 2.11(A), a judge must disqualify themselves if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Here:

• The judge appeared more concerned with personal offense than with the psychological and legal harm to a litigant
• His responses favored one side’s procedural comfort (his own) over the substantive rights of a vulnerable party

This gives rise to a reasonable perception of bias, especially in light of the judge’s repeated inaction regarding defense misconduct.

4. Due Process Implications

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires fundamental fairness and impartial adjudication. Judge Miller’s decision to chastise a party over public information while failing to address privacy breaches and protective order violations may be interpreted as:

• Retaliatory or arbitrary
• Undermining the fairness of proceedings
• Reflecting prejudgment or hostility toward one side

5. Undermining Trust in Judicial Integrity

The judicial system depends on the perception and reality of neutrality. A judge who punishes an attorney for disclosing [public information]—information he made public—while refusing to reprimand or sanction parties who published another’s medical records and deeply personal history in open court sends a chilling message: the judge’s own comfort is prioritized over the safety and dignity of litigants.

🧾 CONCLUSION

 
Judge Miller’s reprimand of Plaintiff Craig Stevenson’s attorney for disclosing a public fact about the judge, contrasted with his repeated refusal to address documented protective order violations, reveals a disturbing imbalance. This selective enforcement of court norms and disregard for Plaintiff Marie Stevenson’s privacy, dignity, and mental health supports allegations of judicial bias, due process violations, and a failure to maintain the impartiality required by Minnesota’s judicial conduct rules. These discrepancies should be scrutinized not only on appeal but potentially in disciplinary forums as well.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, Judge Kevin Miller’s actions—based on the documented disparity in how he addressed protective order violations versus public information disclosures—may constitute violations of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct and would likely fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for disciplinary review.

📜 Relevant Provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct

1. Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”

• Analysis: Judge Miller’s failure to address repeated protective order violations—many involving intimate, private information including a party’s cancer diagnosis—while reprimanding Plaintiffs’ counsel for including publicly available information about the judge himself, undermines confidence in his impartiality.
• Potential Violation: This disparate treatment risks creating a reasonable perception of favoritism, bias, or personal sensitivity overriding judicial duty.

2. Rule 2.2 – Impartiality and Fairness

“A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”

• Analysis: By declining to enforce the protective order, even after multiple documented violations were brought to his attention, Judge Miller arguably failed to apply and uphold the order in a fair and impartial manner. His own public disclosure of Plaintiff Marie Stevenson’s cancer diagnosis also raises questions about his duty to protect litigants’ privacy.
• Potential Violation: This conduct could be viewed as abdicating the court’s enforcement responsibility to the prejudice of one party.

3. Rule 2.3 – Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

“A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.”

• Analysis: Ignoring significant privacy violations by one side while publicly admonishing the other over a minor reference to a public fact creates the appearance of unequal treatment, potentially amounting to bias in the administration of justice.
• Potential Violation: This imbalance, particularly when compounded by minimizing trauma-related harms as “petty oppression,” may suggest a prejudicial disregard for one party’s legal and emotional injuries.

4. Rule 2.6 – Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

“A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding… the right to be heard according to law.”

• Analysis: By refusing to meaningfully engage with Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints about protective order violations and discovery misconduct, Judge Miller may have deprived them of a meaningful opportunity to be heard on matters vital to the fairness of the proceedings.
• Potential Violation: A consistent failure to address one side’s substantive grievances may constitute a constructive denial of their right to fair process.

🏛️ Jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards

 
The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards has jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by sitting state court judges, including district court judges like Judge Miller.

Under Minn. Stat. § 490A.02, subd. 1, the Board is empowered to investigate and take action for:

• Willful violations of the Code
• Persistent failure to perform judicial duties
• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

The Board may initiate:

• Private warnings
• Public reprimands
• Formal discipline, suspension, or recommendation for removal (through proceedings before the Minnesota Supreme Court)

Based on the documentation provided:

• Repeated refusal to enforce judicial orders
• Disparate treatment of parties
• Public disclosure of confidential health information
• Scolding an attorney over non-confidential public facts

… the pattern may rise to the level of conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and thus falls well within the Board’s oversight.

✅ Conclusion

 
Yes, Judge Miller’s conduct—particularly his failure to enforce protective orders, disclosure of confidential information, and his public criticism of Plaintiffs’ counsel over a benign public fact—may violate multiple provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. These potential violations clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for investigation and possible disciplinary review.